SUMMARY: The trial court had the authority to prohibit therapy with a particular therapist based on evidence that the therapist was unable to understand why an adjudicated sex offender should be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The trial court also properly declined to adopt DHHS’s plan of terminating jurisdiction based on evidence indicating Vincent’s likelihood to re-offend and the need for individual and family therapy.
Vincent was adjudicated under section 43-247 (3)(a) stemming from allegations that Vincent sexually assaulted a 5-year-old boy. At a continued dispositional hearing in May 2006, the court considered evidence which included a DHHS August 2005 court report and December 2005 case plan. At the dispositional hearing, DHHS recommended that the case be closed. The dispositional order entered May 17, 2006 specifically held that “’the case plan is disapproved and is not in the best interests’” of the juvenile, and ordered the juvenile to “enroll in an age appropriate sex offender therapy program.” The juvenile court further ordered termination of the juvenile’s treatment with his current therapist.
DHHS appealed on two issues: (1) the juvenile court erred in not adopting DHHS’s recommendation to terminate jurisdiction and (2) the juvenile court erred in dismissing the juvenile’s therapist and ordering sex offender therapy.
The Court of Appeals concluded that continuing jurisdiction was in the best interest of the child. Among the evidence that supported the juvenile court’s refusal to terminate jurisdiction was a psychological evaluation completed in April 2006. The evaluation indicated that the juvenile would be at risk to re-offend if guilty of the offense upon which he was adjudicated. The evaluator further recommended the juvenile’s continued participation in therapy services “to monitor him for signs of problematic sexual boundary concerns and other areas related to sexual abuse,” regardless of whether or not the juvenile committed the offense. Thus, the conditions which led to the juvenile’s adjudication had not yet been resolved. Further, in absence of legal authority, ordering age appropriate sex offender therapy for a juvenile adjudicated for sexual assault of a 5-year-old boy was not an abuse of discretion.
Finally, the letters from the juvenile’s dismissed therapist, which indicated that the she [the therapist] did not understand why the juvenile was a ward of the state, were sufficient to warrant ending the juvenile’s treatment with her. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the therapist’s relationship with the juvenile after it determined that the therapist exhibited a “preconceived bias attitude” through her letters questioning why Vincent was under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.